This is not a “concession”. It was always part of the plan. It is part of a wider incremental set of reforms that will over time (although I understand not fast enough for some) lead to more and eventually full equality for gay and lesbian people. This is a journey and change does not happen overnight. The Clintons efforts in the 1990s may have been well-intentioned but ultimately left us with DOMA (signed by Bill Clinton) and DADT (a messy compromise after the reform was rushed in 1993).

Although the language of the Justice Department was extremely unfortunate to say the least, they are constitutionally obliged to defend the law as it stands. What is needed here is a combination of patience and persistence and not moaning about lack of action. The president can be part of the solutions but it also requires action from Congress on issues like DOMA and ENDA which cannot be struck down by the White House.

#2: Eddy – when the UK introduced full democracy in the 1920’s ie the right of all adults over the age of 18 to vote regardless of whether they were male or female there was an active campaign to only allow women over the age of 30 to vote (while men would have been allowed to vote at 21). That too would have been ‘incremental progress’ as at least women’s rights would have been better than before.

However that would have been utterly unacceptable.

I understand that progress is incremental and equality does not happen overnight. But make no mistake, even though Obama is only half committed to equality he needs to know that his refusal to honour his pre-election promises is dishonest; unacceptable and will be remembered when he’s up for re-election.

I know he may be waiting until term 2 to honour his promises. But there is no guarantee he will be re-elected. Especially if the economy does not recover. If he does not get re-elected then I doubt that a Republic*nt president will allow any progress.

I agree wholeheartedly with Simon’s point, though it does need a slight historical correction. The British Government did indeed widen the franchise, giving women the vote, incrementally, in 2 stages. In 1918 women over the age of 30 were granted the vote after ‘proving’ themselves as heroic citizens during World War I when they performed many jobs hitherto the sole preserve of men such as bus conductors, factory workers and railway porters. Men however could vote at 21. It was a full 10 years later in 1928 when women had again ‘proved’ that they could use their new-found rights responsibly! until an equality between men and women was won with a common age of 21 (reduced to 18 in 1970).

In the the period 1967 to 1997 we were again given rights incrementally in terms of the age of consent for sex – it was legalised in 1967 only for the over 21s, reduced to 18 by John Major’s administration in 1994 and then finally an equal age of 18 was granted by Tony Blair in 2000.

But nontheless these examples and should in now way act as a precedent for the incremental introduction of equal rights for gay citizens.

I agree that Obama’s halo is becoming irredeemably tarnished. The gay community is largely outraged by his treachery and inaction, but they aren’t alone. The Left in the US is now painfully aware that most of his progressive rhetoric during the campaign was hollow. I tried to warn the Obamatons prior to the election, but to no avail. The only satisfaction I have is to now be able to rub their noses in their folly.